Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
What I meant was a different universe...not the same one that endured eternity....if science was correct, matter could not be created nor destroyed....
I choose to believe that the universe is "ever changing" and "eternal"...but I do not have proof to justify my beliefs...I dun need proofs...that's what faith is all about...I dun have all the correct answers...and I think that's not important....the important thing is that your religious beliefs makes u a better person....
Besides scientific problems which are already formidable objections to the eternal universe idea, I think there are also philosophical problems with such an idea, not least of all is that how can one have matter that goes back to infinity and yet we have arrived at today?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Your website says "god is eternal and therefore needs no creator".
1. God is not even proven empirically. Cannot be measured, detected, compared and observed.
2. Eternity is also not a proven concept.
3. Making a statement like this does not make it a fact automatically.
TThere you go. I have shown you why the website's explanation doesnt make sense and is baseless
Tsk tsk, please prove empirically that empicisim is true. Otherwise why should empiricism be the criteria to assess the truth of anything if it even fails its own criteria?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
"Believers in God comes in all forms, from the humble farmer to the those in the highest echelons of academia."
Agreed.
There are many scientists/mathematicians today who believe in Allah, Lord Krishna, Jesus etc.
Indeed, then the challenge for you is to provide a coherent explanation as to why belief in the supernatural realm and in gods/God persists throughout known human history. Let me guess, you are gonna give us a cool story bro? -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Indeed, then the challenge for you is to provide a coherent explanation as to why belief in the supernatural realm and in gods/God persists throughout known human history. Let me guess, you are gonna give us a cool story bro?Yes
Smoking, taking drugs and prostitution have also persisted throughout human known history.
You are gonna give us a cool story bro?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Besides scientific problems which are already formidable objections to the eternal universe idea, I think there are also philosophical problems with such an idea, not least of all is that how can one have matter that goes back to infinity and yet we have arrived at today?
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." Rev 21:1
Doesn't that hint of another new universe forms when the old one ceased to exist ?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." Rev 21:1
Doesn't that hint of another new universe forms when the old one ceased to exist ?
But it doesn't teach that our present universe came about because an old one ceased to exist. Remember you are coming from a worldview that says that history is cyclical whereas the Biblical worldview of history is linear. universe has a beginning and there was no universe prior. The new heavens and new earth is the eternal state that God has established after the present fallen state is done away with. The Buddhist view does not talk about a fallen world that needs to be dealt with.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But it doesn't teach that our present universe came about because an old one ceased to exist. Remember you are coming from a worldview that says that history is cyclical whereas the Biblical worldview of history is linear. universe has a beginning and there was no universe prior. The new heavens and new earth is the eternal state that God has established after the present fallen state is done away with. The Buddhist view does not talk about a fallen world that needs to be dealt with.
Maybe you are right....for now I still choose to believe that the universe is "eternal"....not the same one, but a totally new ones "everytime" the old one ends....Buddhism did taught about multiple universes co-existing even now this present moment....the universes are so far away from each other and are ruled by various buddhas....so I won't be surprised that Jesus has his own heaven/universe prepared for you, a righteous believer !
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Maybe you are right....for now I still choose to believe that the universe is "eternal"....not the same one, but a totally new ones "everytime" the old one ends....Buddhism did taught about multiple universes co-existing even now this present moment....the universes are so far away from each other and are ruled by various buddhas....so I won't be surprised that Jesus has his own heaven/universe prepared for you, a righteous believer !
It's interesting that you would say that Buddha would have taught the idea of an eternal "universe" that contains multiverses when he also taught that nothing is permanent.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It's interesting that you would say that Buddha would have taught the idea of an eternal "universe" that contains multiverses when he also taught that nothing is permanent.
Dear BIC, the buddha taught us many things...as our minds expanded and matured, He taught new things and new methods...according to our level of understanding....
When he taught "nothing is permanent" he meant by the "eternal nature of all phenomena"....vicious cycles of birth, old age, sickness and death....even the universes are no exception....
Some people are happy with the preliminary stuffs the buddha taught, others went for advanced stuffs, some even mastered the supreme level stuffs....that's why there are so many different schools in buddhism....
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Dear BIC, the buddha taught us many things...as our minds expanded and matured, He taught new things and new methods...according to our level of understanding....
When he taught "nothing is permanent" he meant by the "eternal nature of all phenomena"....vicious cycles of birth, old age, sickness and death....even the universes are no exception....
Some people are happy with the preliminary stuffs the buddha taught, others went for advanced stuffs, some even mastered the supreme level stuffs....that's why there are so many different schools in buddhism....
But how can "nothing is permanent" be squared with an eternal universe? To my mind, if nothing is permanent, then it also applies to the phrase itself, and it becomes self-refuting.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But how can "nothing is permanent" be squared with an eternal universe? To my mind, if nothing is permanent, then it also applies to the phrase itself, and it becomes self-refuting.
BIC,
Since you think only "linearly", Buddhism might be too deep for you.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But how can "nothing is permanent" be squared with an eternal universe? To my mind, if nothing is permanent, then it also applies to the phrase itself, and it becomes self-refuting.
Exactly, that's why the buddha also revealed in the Diamond Sutra....about "giving names" to everything in existence...when u label it, it becomes real and not real altogether....like u said, self-refuting....
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
Since you think only "linearly", Buddhism might be too deep for you.
Stop patronising lah. You simply treat Buddhism as false as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Exactly, that's why the buddha also revealed in the Diamond Sutra....about "giving names" to everything in existence...when u label it, it becomes real and not real altogether....like u said, self-refuting....
But then it is precisely because something is real that we attach a label to it that reflects it substance. We call a dog a dog or give it a name "Spot" because it is a real entity.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But then it is precisely because something is real that we attach a label to it that reflects it substance. We call a dog a dog or give it a name "Spot" because it is a real entity.
Different schools of buddhism will have different forms of buddhist practice....I won't go into detail here becos its still a christian forum....if you are interested in buddhism, maybe u can ask those experts over at the buddhism forum...
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Different schools of buddhism will have different forms of buddhist practice....I won't go into detail here becos its still a christian forum....if you are interested in buddhism, maybe u can ask those experts over at the buddhism forum...
It's OK, let's just leave it as that.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Stop patronising lah. You simply treat Buddhism as false as a whole.
Its true you think linearly and Buddhism isnt linear. So you wont comprehend it. I was like you.
And no I do not reject the whole of Buddhism.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Its true you think linearly and Buddhism isnt linear. So you wont comprehend it. I was like you.
And no I do not reject the whole of Buddhism.
Still playing patronising games Tcmc?
And please don't drag me to your level. By my lights, some things are incomprehensible because they are just irrational. Now this may not originate from Buddhism but there is a saying about "what is the sound of one hand clapping". Is this meant to be comprehended in the first place? Nope, it is an irrational statement.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
well the world has believed in god for the past 2 millennium until science has proven its fallacy. we now know that rain and disasters are not acts of god.
Not all in the world believes in god in the past, many still didn't believe and many like you don't believe in god now. But it doesn't say anything about the existance of God.
Science has proven many things including some of the scientific theories which are now proven wrong, or the theories don't cover all the situations. Man are still discovering through scientific researches, but it hasn't proven God as a fallacy.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Yes
Smoking, taking drugs and prostitution have also persisted throughout human known history.
You are gonna give us a cool story bro?
Nope but I'm gonna give you a Biblical (and I believe to be true) account of history. The moral failings of man as far back as known human history has its origin in the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God when they partook of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that God has expressedly forbidden them to eat from. In Christian theology this is called Original Sin, i.e. we are all dead in Adam because we all inherited the sin nature of Adam.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Not all in the world believes in god in the past, many still didn't believe and many like you don't believe in god now. But it doesn't say anything about the existance of God.
Science has proven many things including some of the scientific theories which are now proven wrong, or the theories don't cover all the situations. Man are still discovering through scientific researches, but it hasn't proven God as a fallacy.
Science cannot prove everything and is limited.
But that does not mean you have to fill up the gaps conveniently with "god".
That is why some writers/authors refer this syndrome to as "god of the gaps".
You dont have to fill up anything you dont know with a god.
It's a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Nope but I'm gonna give you a Biblical (and I believe to be true) account of history. The moral failings of man as far back as known human history has its origin in the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God when they partook of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that God has expressedly forbidden them to eat from. In Christian theology this is called Original Sin, i.e. we are all dead in Adam because we all inherited the sin nature of Adam.
Is it fair to judge and condemn us for the sin of Adam and Eve ? Its like your ancestors did something wrong and you are being punished for it....Hmmmm....
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Nope but I'm gonna give you a Biblical (and I believe to be true) account of history. The moral failings of man as far back as known human history has its origin in the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God when they partook of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that God has expressedly forbidden them to eat from. In Christian theology this is called Original Sin, i.e. we are all dead in Adam because we all inherited the sin nature of Adam.
Redemption thru Jesus Christ ? How about the others non-believers? Condemned for the sin of their ancestors? That's not fair do u think?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Nope but I'm gonna give you a Biblical (and I believe to be true) account of history. The moral failings of man as far back as known human history has its origin in the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God when they partook of the forbidden fruit from the forbidden tree that God has expressedly forbidden them to eat from. In Christian theology this is called Original Sin, i.e. we are all dead in Adam because we all inherited the sin nature of Adam.
BIC,
You didnt get my point did you?
I was trying to show you that your logic failed.
1. YOU said as long as something persists through time, it must be good. Well, many things have persisted through time like drugs and prostitution. Your logic failed.
2. You can believe in your Magic Fruit story but I am not going to and likewise for the billions of nonchristians who dont.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Science cannot prove everything and is limited.
But that does not mean you have to fill up the gaps conveniently with "god".
That is why some writers/authors refer this syndrome to as "god of the gaps".
You dont have to fill up anything you dont know with a god.
It's a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Yes, it is a fallacy, but the question is, are Christians guilty of it? The answer is, it depends on how one answers it! In other words, some Christians do argue the God of the gaps, and some do not. But more often the case it is the atheist who CARICATURES the answer in an attempt to poison the well, in saying that ALL Christians commit this fallacy. As the following article well demonstrates, the god-of-the-gaps argument is only good against a particular deistic approach to God and nature, and loses its potency when Scripture and science are pursued together.
See http://creation.com/whose-god-the-theological-response-to-the-god-of-the-gaps
But what the atheist conveniently forgets, and is obviously blinded to, is his very own fallacious naturalism of the gaps argument which ALL atheists ALWAYS commit, which is that what we do not know now from science, given time we will know and it will have absolutely nothing to do with God.